gun control

[Jagdraben]

I'm going to keep this (somewhat) short and to the point, as I have been dealing with this ###### all year long. And I'm also physically sick of it.

 

"Gun control" laws are nothing more than political acts of masturbation. They make some people feel good, others feel messy, and achieve f___all.

Gun control laws are, literally, only for the law-abiding. But it's not the law-abiding citizens who are causing the problems, it's the people who aren't even legally able to possess firearms in the first place.

Two fun facts:

1- The Supreme Court of the United States has held that a criminal who unlawfully possesses a firearm cannot be charged with failing to register the firearm. Because in order to register it, they have to violate their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

2a- The United States Center for Disease Control in accordance with President Obama's Executive Orders signed in Spring has found... absolutely no positive correlation between rates of violent crime and the numbers and availability of legal firearms. They did find a correlation. A negative correlation. As a rule, the more legal firearms there are and the more available they are, the rate of violent crime drops.

2b- Harvard University recently published a study that found no correlation between numbers and availability of legal firearms and (specifically) firearm-related crimes. They found that other issues, such as socio-economic issues, were much better indicators of firearms-related violent crimes. 

 

So in summation: Firearms laws only affect the law-abiding. They have no impact on violent crime or even firearms-related crimes. They are, in short, useless; their sole achievements being to inconvenience lawful firearms owners and would be owners, to render people less able to protect themselves against illegally-armed criminals, and to make certain persons who by-and-large live in gated communities protected by armed guards trained and equipped at US tax-payer expense feel better about themselves. 

Oh, and the local police, sheriff, state police, and Feds have no business knowing what firearms I do or do not possess. All anybody needs to know is whether or not I am able to lawfully possess a firearm.

[Mike_West]

And the last shooting spree should be blamed on the judicial system being too lenient. To wit: in 2004, Aaron Alexis threatened another man with a handgun. For some strange reason, he weaseled out of that one without as much as having his pistol permit revoked, not to mention a conviction, or jail time, or anything, and oddest of all, it happened in Texas.

 

Seriously, if someone did his job right nine years ago, the Navy Yard shootout would not have happened, gun control or no gun control.

[hitmanNo2]

If someone had done their job correctly when the Navy yard incident happened it could have played out differently.  Apparently a four man CERT (basically SWAT) turned up shortly after the alarm was raised and were told to stand down...

[Jagdraben]

And the last shooting spree should be blamed on the judicial system being too lenient. To wit: in 2004, Aaron Alexis threatened another man with a handgun. For some strange reason, he weaseled out of that one without as much as having his pistol permit revoked, not to mention a conviction, or jail time, or anything, and oddest of all, it happened in Texas.

 

Seriously, if someone did his job right nine years ago, the Navy Yard shootout would not have happened, gun control or no gun control.

 

There was also his having an ND into a neighbor's house. A neighbor who he had complained about making too much noise.

 

If someone had done their job correctly when the Navy yard incident happened it could have played out differently.  Apparently a four man CERT (basically SWAT) turned up shortly after the alarm was raised and were told to stand down...

The Navy yard is huge. One four man CERT team, unless they're in the right location at the right time, is a drop in the bucket when it comes to securing down that particular base. I have this on good authority from those who have worked there and are working there.

[hitmanNo2]

But surely you agree that in the event of such a shooting, if a well armed team turned up, they should not be turned away?  Regardless of the size of the area.  Sure, they wouldn't have been able to save everyone, but they were in a better position to engage the guy than whoever turned them away.  It's like if someone offered you £100k and you just turned round and said 'no thanks. I don't like money. Now *fruitcage* off' Someone should be getting into serious trouble if these accusations are true.

[Jagdraben]

Oh, I agree. But the simple fact is that our CONUS military bases are woefully unprepared to deal with a single active shooter, let alone a small team, as might occur in the event of a terrorist attack instead of one dude seriously off his rocker.

ETA: That and everybody who makes decisions impacting the safety of a military base, like the navy yard, is high enough ranking to be completely safe. They'll probably find some poor junior officer or SNCO to scapegoat and change nothing in the meantime. Except maybe to order that more reflective belts be worn.

[hitmanNo2]

I imagine this incident might change that, a la The North Hollywood shootout.  But then again, we are talking about the government...

[Jagdraben]

The government. More specifically the military. Already operating under a peacetime mentality. During sequestration and a military draw-down.

 

The good ole' boys' network will ensure that their own are covered and the competent and unorthodox are thrown under the bus.

[Danke]

I have to honestly suspect the CERT team recall had to be a local commander unwilling to commit his resources to a location outside of his turf.

 

A clear mistake but an easy one to make in the heat of the moment. If the Navy Yard had been part of a a larger coordinated attack the guy who held them back would be getting slapped on the back instead of fried right now.

.

[Jagdraben]

Also true.

[Mike_West]

There was also his having an ND into a neighbor's house. A neighbor who he had complained about making too much noise.

Yes, although that one could have been defended in court (and was) as accidental. But threatening a guy and shooting the tires in his car out? Does that one constitute an assault?

[Jagdraben]

Yes, although that one could have been defended in court (and was) as accidental. But threatening a guy and shooting the tires in his car out? Does that one constitute an assault?

 

I thought that charges were never brought with the negligent discharge.

 

And, yeah, I'm not a lawyer, but the dude should have definitely gone away for a long time after shooting out the construction worker's tires.

[Skarclaw]

points of debates:

 

what motivates a grown man to conceal a firearm on his person so he can visit the shops? 

 

when kids decide to kill a bunch of thier school mates, why do they choose a gun over a knife, or a car?

[hitmanNo2]

Point one, I guess people do it because they can. Part of me thinks it's weird to carry all the time and I would only do if I was out late at night/early driving or something.  But then again you would kick yourself if you left it at home whilst you visit somewhere banal and someone starts shooting.  So not much a need but some kind of duty they feel. Then there are the people that open carry ARs that are just *fruitcage*wits.

 

As for school shootings.  We can blame the media for that.  Much more interesting than vehicular murder. There's nothing they like more than a bit of 24/7 'reporting' on a school shooting.  Getting the perpetrators nice and infamous.

[maccrage]

Point 1. I do because I can, I've been robbed before, and I have people from work who would gladly kill me.

 

Point 2. Because they have mental issues. If there were no guns, they would use another means.

[Jagdraben]

Pt1 - "In the wrong hands anything can be a weapon. In the right hands everything is - or nothing is."

 

For the safety of oneself and the safety of those around one.

 

Pt2 - For any or all of the reasons human beings kill each other.

[media=480,360]

[/media]

[Jagdraben]

Too late to edit my last, but here's a damned good reason for a grown man to carry a firearm into a shop:

 

SAS soldier carrying concealed handgun saves lives in Kenya.

[hitmanNo2]

I did wonder about the sheer amount of plain clothed guys with guns and what their carry laws are.

[Mike_West]

Point 1. I do because I can, I've been robbed before, and I have people from work who would gladly kill me.

About that last part... I think you're pushing it a bit, even considering you're in the Navy (IIRC).

 

I did wonder about the sheer amount of plain clothed guys with guns and what their carry laws are.

Yeah, me too. I don't really put much faith in African gun laws, African countries are usually more or less veiled dictatorships.

[maccrage]

Retired Navy. I am a corrections officer now, and some former "guests" don't like us very much. We had an officer assaulted by a former inmate not too long ago.

[JCheeseright]

Too late to edit my last, but here's a damned good reason for a grown man to carry a firearm into a shop:

 

SAS soldier carrying concealed handgun saves lives in Kenya.

 

They've corrected the article now, not SAS, just a regular ex-Royal Marine (as regular as they get anyway)!

[Skarclaw]

lazy formatting sorry:

 

1)having ex cons with a grudge on your case is not a particularly common experience for most people I would expect. Neither is being an ex-sas/marine (I've heard both) chap in Kenya (!) who finds himself in a terrorist hold up. Risk assessment wise its quite extreme - not like putting on a seatbelt, or not smoking. None of these involve potentially killing someone though! My grandad carried a gun when he was  stationed in Cyprus not for his self defence but rather for someone else. Jags quote echoes the sentiments but again I don't think it quite chimes with the majority of 'civilians' who carry. 

 

2)Of course human beings are violent - a gun allows this to be expressed very well! better then a car and better then a knife. Sandy Hook was more fatal then the Boston bombings. Mumbai, Brevik, and now in Kenya. I think the media does play its parts, as do SSRIs. But guns still play a very important role! Naturally all massive industries with political influence too. excellent!

[Jagdraben]

lazy formatting sorry:

 

1)having ex cons with a grudge on your case is not a particularly common experience for most people I would expect. Neither is being an ex-sas/marine (I've heard both) chap in Kenya (!) who finds himself in a terrorist hold up. Risk assessment wise its quite extreme - not like putting on a seatbelt, or not smoking. None of these involve potentially killing someone though! My grandad carried a gun when he was  stationed in Cyprus not for his self defence but rather for someone else. Jags quote echoes the sentiments but again I don't think it quite chimes with the majority of 'civilians' who carry. 

 

2)Of course human beings are violent - a gun allows this to be expressed very well! better then a car and better then a knife. Sandy Hook was more fatal then the Boston bombings. Mumbai, Brevik, and now in Kenya. I think the media does play its parts, as do SSRIs. But guns still play a very important role! Naturally all massive industries with political influence too. excellent!

 

1-This is exactly like wearing a seatbelt. I'm not very likely to be in an accident. I'm not very likely to be the target of a violent crime. But it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

 

2-I remind you that the deadliest incidents of mass violence, at least in this country, involved box cutters (a tool for opening boxes that conveniently also works for opening the jugular) and fertilizer (all the wonderful high energy compounds that help plants grow big and fast and healthy also happen to combust in a spectacular fashion when placed under pressure with an ignition source). The deadliest incident of schoolyard violence in this country involved two or three bombs (I forget the exact number) and occurred in the 1920s. And virtually all of these violent acts occur in places where firearms are already illegal - something which does not deter the demented and deranged, but very effectively prevents the law-abiding from carrying their firearms into such places.

[Mike_West]

Retired Navy. I am a corrections officer now, and some former "guests" don't like us very much. We had an officer assaulted by a former inmate not too long ago.

OK, that changes things for the worse.

 

Sandy Hook was more fatal then the Boston bombings.

Are you high or taking the ? Tsarbombov brothers planned an attack, planted explosives in the middle of a busy sidewalk, then bailed out and boom, hundreds of casualties. Adam Lanza on the other hand was nothing but an attention-seeking schmuck who just couldn't brain himself in his basement and be done with it. As for Breivik, he stockpiled enough illegal *suitcase* that if the cops knew it earlier, he'd end up in jail for just as long without even pulling the trigger. And with terror cell attacks, you have no idea how large and well-connected those groups are. If they could plant bombs on underground trains in London, Mumbai and Nairobi were -easy compared to that.

[Skarclaw]

Jag: I was under the assumption more people were killed by cars then they were guns. It is more likely that you will be involved in a car accident then a violent encounter. Of course wearing a seatbelt is unlikely to kill anybody. CCW smacks of macho posturing, imo.

 

I doubt the hijackers would of used box cutters if they could get a gun through customs. I'm a great fan of the have it and not need it philosophy. But once again this does not apply to me shooting someone. I am aware of the 1920s bombing but it begs the question as to why kids use guns instead of bombs: Because they are effective, easily obtainable and do not require nearly as much skill to use as an improvised explosive takes to construct. Regardless, just because large amounts of people have been killed without the use of guns does not mean that guns are still very lethal!

 

Mike:

 

Yes, but! Those are the facts. I don't think it is taking the to say that Sandy Hook = 26 casualties. Boston Bombings = 3. Likewise with brevik his bomb killed eight and his shooting spree killed 69. You'll have to clarify what you mean in reference to kenya as I'm not sure. FWIW I am suggesting that it is likely that in the US, at least, terrorists could quite easily adopt that tactic as they could accumulate weapons with less suspicion then bomb components.